United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Testimony
Before the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT
Wednesday, June 4, 2003
HUMAN CAPITAL
Building on DOD's Reform
Effort to Foster
Governmentwide
Improvements
Statement of David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
GAO-03-851T
June 4, 2003
HUMAN CAPITAL
Highlights of GAO-03-851T,
testimony before the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States
Senate
People are at the heart of an
organization’s ability to perform its
mission. Yet a key challenge for
the Department of Defense (DOD),
as for many federal agencies, is to
strategically manage its human
capital. DOD’s proposed National
Security Personnel System would
provide for wide-ranging changes
in DOD’s civilian personnel pay and
performance management and
other human capital areas. Given
the massive size of DOD, the
proposal has important precedentsetting implications for federal
human capital management.
This testimony provides GAO’s
observations on DOD human
capital reform proposals and the
need for governmentwide reform.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-851T.
To view the full testimony, click on the link
above. For more information, contact Derek
Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or
stewartd@gao.gov.
Building on DOD’s Reform Effort to
Foster Governmentwide Improvements
GAO strongly supports the need for government transformation and the
concept of modernizing federal human capital policies both within DOD
and for the federal government at large. The federal personnel system is
clearly broken in critical respects—designed for a time and workforce of
an earlier era and not able to meet the needs and challenges of today’s
rapidly changing and knowledge-based environment. The human capital
authorities being considered for DOD have far-reaching implications for
the way DOD is managed as well as significant precedent-setting
implications for the rest of the federal government. GAO is pleased that
as the Congress has reviewed DOD’s legislative proposal it has added a
number of important safeguards, including many along the lines GAO has
been suggesting, that will help DOD maximize its chances of success in
addressing its human capital challenges and minimize the risk of failure.
More generally, GAO believes that agency-specific human capital reforms
should be enacted to the extent that the problems being addressed and
the solutions offered are specific to a particular agency (e.g., military
personnel reforms for DOD). Several of the proposed DOD reforms meet
this test. In GAO’s view, the relevant sections of the House’s version of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and the
proposal that is being considered as part of this hearing contain a
number of important improvements over the initial DOD legislative
proposal.
Moving forward, GAO believes it would be preferable to employ a
governmentwide approach to address human capital issues and the need
for certain flexibilities that have broad-based application and serious
potential implications for the civil service system, in general, and the
Office of Personnel Management, in particular. GAO believes that
several of the reforms that DOD is proposing fall into this category (e.g.,
broad banding, pay for performance, re-employment and pension offset
waivers). In these situations, GAO believes it would be both prudent and
preferable for the Congress to provide such authorities governmentwide
and ensure that appropriate performance management systems and
safeguards are in place before the new authorities are implemented by
the respective agency. Importantly, employing this approach is not
intended to delay action on DOD’s or any other individual agency’s
efforts, but rather to accelerate needed human capital reform throughout
the federal government in a manner that ensures reasonable consistency
on key principles within the overall civilian workforce. This approach
also would help to maintain a level playing field among federal agencies
in competing for talent and would help avoid further fragmentation
within the civil service.
Chairman Collins and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss legislative proposals to help the
Department of Defense (DOD) address its current and emerging human
capital challenges. Over the past few weeks, I have been honored to
appear as a witness before the Congress on three other occasions to
discuss this important issue and related DOD human capital concerns.1 As
the House of Representatives has reviewed DOD’s legislative proposal, it
has added a number of important safeguards, including many along the
lines we were suggesting, that will help DOD maximize its chances of
success in addressing its human capital challenges and minimize the risk
of failure. Furthermore, the proposed National Security Personnel System
Act that is the subject of this hearing also includes a significant number of
improvements over DOD’s initial proposal. I understand that there are
important issues that will need to be resolved in conference that obviously
have implications for DOD’s reform efforts, and may have major
implications for governmentwide reform efforts.
We strongly support the need for government transformation and the
concept of modernizing federal human capital policies both within DOD
and for the federal government at large. The federal personnel system is
clearly broken in critical respects—designed for a time and workforce of
an earlier era and not able to meet the needs and challenges of our rapidly
changing and knowledge-based environment. Nonetheless, I believe that
we have made more progress in addressing the government’s longstanding human capital challenges in the last 2 years than in the previous
20, and I am confident that we will make more progress in the next 2 years
than we have made in the last 2 years.
The human capital authorities being considered for DOD have far-reaching
implications for the way DOD is managed as well as significant precedentsetting implications for the rest of the federal government. DOD has
almost 700,000 civilian employees. The Department of Homeland Security,
which also has broad human capital flexibilities, has about 140,000 civilian
1
U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: DOD’s Civilian Personnel Strategic
Management and the Proposed National Security Personnel System, GAO-03-493T
(Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2003); Defense Transformation: DOD’s Proposed Civilian
Personnel System and Governmentwide Human Capital Reform, GAO-03-741T
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003); and Defense Transformation: Preliminary Observations
on DOD’s Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29,
2003).
Page 1
GAO-03-851T
employees. Other federal agencies that have been granted broad
authorities, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Internal
Revenue Service, have many thousands more federal employees. In
essence, we are fast approaching the point where “standard
governmentwide” human capital policies and procedures are neither
standard nor governmentwide. In this environment, we should pursue
governmentwide reforms and flexibilities that can be used by many
government agencies, subject to agencies having appropriate
infrastructures in place before such authorities are put in operation.
Considering certain proposed DOD reforms in the context of the need for
governmentwide reform could serve to accelerate progress across the
government while at the same time incorporating appropriate safeguards
to maximize the ultimate chances of success and minimize the potential
for abuse and prevent the further fragmentation of the civil service.
More directly, agency-specific human capital reforms should be enacted to
the extent that the problems being addressed and the solutions offered are
specific to a particular agency (e.g., military personnel reforms for DOD).
Several of the proposed DOD reforms meet this test. Importantly, the
relevant sections of the House of Representatives’ version of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and Chairman Collins,
Senator Levin, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Sununu’s National Security
Personnel System Act, in our view, contain a number of important
improvements over the initial DOD legislative proposal.
Moving forward, we believe it would be preferable to employ a
governmentwide approach to address human capital issues and the need
for certain flexibilities that have broad-based application and serious
potential implications for the civil service system, in general, and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in particular. We believe that
several of the reforms that DOD is proposing fall into this category (e.g.,
broad banding, pay for performance, re-employment, and pension offset
waivers). In these situations, we believe it would be both prudent and
preferable for the Congress to provide such authorities governmentwide
and ensure that appropriate performance management systems and
safeguards are in place before the new authorities are implemented by the
respective agencies. This approach would help to maintain a level playing
field among federal agencies in competing for talent. Importantly,
employing this approach is not intended to delay action on DOD’s or any
other individual agency’s efforts.
However, in all cases whether through a governmentwide authority or
agency-specific legislation, in our view, such additional authorities should
Page 2
GAO-03-851T
be put in operation only when an agency has the institutional
infrastructure in place to use the new authorities effectively. This
institutional infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human capital
planning process that integrates the agency’s human capital policies,
strategies, and programs with its program goals and mission and desired
outcomes; the capabilities to develop and implement a new human capital
system effectively; and a modern, effective, and credible performance
management system that includes adequate safeguards, including
reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to
ensure the fair, effective, and nondiscriminatory implementation of the
system.
My recent statements before the Congress have discussed DOD’s human
capital challenges and have provided comments and suggestions on the
initial DOD proposal to create a National Security Personnel System
(NSPS). Building on those statements, today I will comment on current
DOD human capital reform proposals, including the National Security
Personnel System Act, and how those proposals can be used to help
leverage governmentwide change.
Observations on
Proposed DOD
Reforms
As I observed when I first testified on the DOD proposal in April, many of
the basic principles underlying DOD’s civilian human capital proposals
have merit and deserve the serious consideration they are receiving.
Secretary Rumsfeld and the rest of DOD’s leadership are clearly
committed to transforming how DOD does business. Based on our
experience, while DOD’s leadership has the intent and the ability to
transform DOD, the needed institutional infrastructure is not in place
within a vast majority of DOD organizations. Our work looking at DOD’s
strategic human capital planning efforts and looking across the federal
government at the use of human capital flexibilities and related human
capital efforts underscores the critical steps that DOD needs to take to
properly develop and effectively implement any new personnel
authorities.2 In the absence of the right institutional infrastructure,
2
See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002); DOD Personnel: DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Civilian Human
Capital Strategic Planning and Integration with Military Personnel and Sourcing
Decisions, GAO-03-475 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2003); and Defense Logistics: Actions
Needed to Overcome Capability Gaps in the Public Depot System, GAO-02-105
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001).
Page 3
GAO-03-851T
granting additional human capital authorities will provide little advantage
and could actually end up doing damage if the authorities are not
implemented properly.
The following provides some observations on key provisions of the
proposed National Security Personnel System Act in relation to the House
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
First, I offer some comments on the overall design for a new personnel
system at DOD. Second, I provide comments on selected aspects of the
proposed system.
DOD’s Overall Human
Capital Program
The House version of DOD’s authorization bill would allow the Secretary
of Defense to develop regulations with the Director of OPM to establish a
human resources management system for DOD. The Secretary of Defense
could waive the requirement for the joint issuance of regulations if, in the
Secretary’s judgment and subject to the decision of the President, it is
“essential to the national security”—which was not defined in the
proposed bill. As an improvement, the proposed National Security
Personnel System Act also requires that the new personnel system be
jointly developed by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of OPM,
but does not allow the joint issuance requirement to be waived. This
approach is consistent with the one the Congress took in creating the
Department of Homeland Security.
The proposed National Security Personnel System Act requires the
Secretary of Defense to phase in the implementation of NSPS beginning in
fiscal year 2004. Specifically, the new personnel authorities could be
implemented for a maximum of 120,000 of DOD’s civilian employees in
fiscal year 2004, up to 240,000 employees in fiscal year 2005, and more
than 240,000 employees in a fiscal year after fiscal year 2005, if the
Secretary of Defense determines that, in accordance with the bill’s
requirement that the Secretary and the Director of OPM jointly develop
regulations for DOD’s new human resources management system, the
Department has in place a performance management system and pay
formula that meets criteria specified in the bill. We strongly support a
phased approach to implementing major management reforms, whether
with the human capital reforms at DOD or with change management
initiatives at other agencies or across the government. We suggest that
OPM, in fulfilling its role under this section of the bill, certify that DOD has
a modern, effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance
management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable
Page 4
GAO-03-851T
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, in place to
support performance-based pay and related personnel decisions.
Employee Appeals Procedures
The proposed National Security Personnel System Act states that the
Secretary of Defense may establish an employee appeals process that is
fair and ensures due process protections for employees. The Secretary of
Defense is required to consult with the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) before issuing any regulations in this area. The DOD appeals
process must be based on legal standards consistent with merit system
principles and may override legal standards and precedents previously
applied by MSPB and the courts in cases related to employee conduct and
performance that fails to meet expectations. The bill would allow appeal
of any decision adversely affecting an employee and raising a substantial
question of law or fact under this process to the Merit Systems Protection
Board under specific standards of review, and the Board’s decision could
be subject to judicial review, as is the case with other MSPB decisions.
This proposal affords the employee review by an independent body and
the opportunity for judicial review along the lines that we have been
suggesting.
DOD Human Capital Reform
Evaluation and Reporting
The proposed National Security Personnel System Act does not include an
evaluation or reporting requirement from DOD on the implementation of
its human capital reforms, although DOD has stated that it will continue its
evaluation of the science and technology reinvention laboratory
demonstration projects when they are integrated under a single human
capital framework. We believe an evaluation and reporting requirement
would facilitate congressional oversight of NSPS, allow for any midcourse
corrections in its implementation, and serve as a tool for documenting best
practices and sharing lessons learned with employees, stakeholders, other
federal agencies, and the public. Specifically, the Congress should
consider requiring that DOD fully track and periodically report on the
implementation and results of its new human capital program. Such
reporting could be on a specified timetable with sunset provisions. These
required evaluations could be broadly modeled on the evaluation
requirements of OPM’s personnel demonstration program. Under the
demonstration project authority, agencies must evaluate and periodically
report on results, implementation of the demonstration project, cost and
benefits, impacts on veterans and other Equal Employment Opportunity
groups, adherence to merit principles, and the extent to which the lessons
from the project can be applied elsewhere, including governmentwide. The
reports could be done in consultation with or subject to review of OPM.
Page 5
GAO-03-851T
Specific DOD Human
Capital Policies and
Practices
Performance Management and
Pay Reform
There is widespread understanding that the basic approach to federal pay
is outdated and that we need to move to a more market- and performancebased approach. Doing so will be essential if we expect to maximize the
performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for
the benefit of the American people. DOD has said that broad banded
performance management and pay for performance systems will be the
cornerstone of its new system.
Reasonable people can and will debate and disagree about the merits of
individual reform proposals. However, all should be able to agree that a
modern, reliable, effective, and validated performance management
system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and
appropriate accountability mechanisms, must serve as the fundamental
underpinning of any successful results-oriented pay reform. We are
pleased that both the House version of DOD’s fiscal year 2004
authorization bill and the proposed National Security Personnel System
Act contain statutory safeguards and standards along the lines that we
have been suggesting to help ensure that DOD’s pay for performance
efforts are fair to employees and improve both individual and
organizational performance.
The statutory standards described in the National Security Personnel
System Act proposal are intended to help ensure a fair, credible, and
equitable system that results in meaningful distinctions in individual
employee performance; employee involvement in the design and
implementation of the system; and effective transparency and
accountability measures, including appropriate independent
reasonableness reviews, internal grievance procedures, internal
assessments, and employee surveys. In our reviews of agencies’
performance management systems—as in our own experience with
designing and implementing performance-based pay reform for ourselves
at GAO—we have found that these safeguards are key to maximizing the
chances of success and minimizing the risk of failure and abuse.
The proposed National Security Personnel System Act also takes the
essential first step in requiring DOD to link the performance management
system to the agency’s strategic plan. Building on this, we suggest that
DOD should also be required to link its performance management system
to program and performance goals and desired outcomes. Linking the
Page 6
GAO-03-851T
performance management system to related goals and desired outcomes
helps the organization ensure that its efforts are properly aligned and
reinforces the line of sight between individual performance and
organizational success so that an individual can see how her/his daily
responsibilities contribute to results and outcomes.
The proposed National Security Personnel System Act includes a detailed
list of elements that regulations for DOD’s broad band pay program must
cover. These elements appear to be taken from DOD’s experience with its
civilian acquisition workforce personnel demonstration project as well as
the plan, as described in an April 2, 2003 Federal Register notice to
integrate all of DOD’s current science and technology reinvention
laboratory demonstration projects under a single human capital
framework.3 Many of the required elements in the proposed National
Security Personnel System Act are entirely appropriate, such as a
communication and feedback requirement, a review process, and a
process for addressing performance that fails to meet expectations.
However, other required elements, such as “performance scores”, appear
to imply a particular approach to performance management that, going
forward, may or may not be appropriate for DOD, and therefore may have
the unintended consequence of reducing DOD’s flexibility to make
adjustments. Congress has an important and continuing role to play in the
design and implementation of the federal government’s personnel policies
and procedures. Congress should consider how best to balance its
responsibilities with agencies’ needs for the flexibility to respond to
changing circumstances.
Finally, under the proposed act, for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the
overall amount allocated for compensation for civilian employees of an
organizational or functional unit of DOD that is included in NSPS shall not
be less than the amount of civilian pay that would have been allocated to
such compensation under the General Schedule. After fiscal year 2008,
DOD’s regulations are to provide a formula for calculating an overall
amount, which is to ensure that employees in NSPS are not disadvantaged
in terms of the overall amount of pay available as a result of their
conversion into NSPS while providing DOD with flexibility to
accommodate changes in the function of the organization, the mix of
employees performing those functions, and other changes that might
affect pay levels.
3
68 Fed. Reg. 16,119-16,142 (2003).
Page 7
GAO-03-851T
Congress has had a longstanding and legitimate interest in federal
employee pay and compensation policies and, as a result, there are
provisions consistent with that interest in the National Security Personnel
System Act. However, as currently constructed, the proposed bill may
have the unintended consequence of creating disincentives, until fiscal
year 2009, for DOD to ensure that it has the most effective and efficient
organizational structure in place. This is because, based on our
understanding of the bill’s language, if DOD were to reorganize, outsource,
or undertake other major change initiatives through 2008 in an
organizational or functional unit that is part of NSPS, DOD may still be
required to allocate an overall amount for compensation to the
reorganized unit based on the number and mix of employees in place prior
to conversion into NSPS. In other words, if priorities shift and DOD needs
to downsize a unit in NSPS significantly, it may still be required that the
downsized unit’s overall compensation level remain the same as it would
have been in the absence of the downsizing. While pay protections during
a transition period are generally appropriate to build employee support for
the changes, we believe that, should the Congress decide to require overall
organizational compensation protection, it should build in additional
flexibilities for DOD to make adjustments in response to changes in the
size of organizations, mix of employees, and other relevant factors.
DOD Senior Executive Service
Performance and Pay Reforms
The current allowable total annual compensation limit for senior
executives would be increased up to the Vice President's total annual
compensation (base pay, locality pay, and awards and bonuses) in the
proposed National Security Personnel System Act and the House National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. In addition, the highest
rate of (base) pay for senior executives would be increased in the House
version of the authorization bill.
The Homeland Security Act provided that OPM, with the concurrence of
the Office of Management and Budget, certify that agencies have
performance appraisal systems that, as designed and applied, make
meaningful distinctions based on relative performance before an agency
could increase its total annual compensation limit for senior executives.
While the House version of DOD’s fiscal year 2004 authorization bill would
still require an OPM certification process to increase the highest rate of
pay for senior executives, neither the proposed National Security
Personnel System Act nor the House bill would require such a certification
for increasing the total annual compensation limit for senior executives.
Page 8
GAO-03-851T
To be generally consistent with the Homeland Security Act, we believe
that the Congress should require that OPM certify that the DOD senior
executive service (SES) performance management system makes
meaningful distinctions in performance and employs the other practices
used by leading organizations to develop effective performance
management systems, including establishing a clear, direct connection
between (1) SES performance ratings and rewards and (2) the degree to
which the organization achieved its goals. DOD would be required to
receive the OPM certification before it could increase the total annual
compensation limit and/or the highest rate of pay for its senior executives.
Attracting Key Talent for DOD
The National Security Personnel System Act contains a number of
provisions designed to give DOD flexibility to help obtain key critical
talent. It allows DOD greater flexibility to (1) hire experts and pay them
special rates for temporary periods up to six years, and (2) define benefits
for certain specialized overseas employees. Specifically, the Secretary
would have the authority to establish a program to attract highly qualified
experts in needed occupations with the flexibility to establish the rate of
pay, eligibility for additional payments, and terms of the appointment.
These authorities give DOD considerable flexibility to obtain and
compensate individuals and exempt them from several provisions of
current law. Consistent with our earlier suggestions, the bill would limit
the number of experts employed at any one time to 300. The Congress
should also consider requiring that these provisions only be used to fill
critically needed skills identified in a DOD strategic human capital plan,
and that DOD report on the use of the authorities under these sections
periodically.
Governmentwide
Human Capital
Reforms
As I mentioned at the outset of my statement today, the consideration of
human capital reforms for DOD naturally suggests opportunities for
governmentwide reform as well. The following provides some suggestions
in that regard.
Governmentwide
Performance-Based Pay
and Other Human Capital
Authorities
We believe that the Congress should consider providing governmentwide
authority to implement broad banding, other pay for performance systems,
and other personnel authorities whereby whole agencies are allowed to
use additional authorities after OPM has certified that they have the
institutional infrastructures in place to make effective and fair use of those
authorities. To obtain additional authority, an agency should be required
to have an OPM-approved human capital plan that is fully integrated with
the agency’s strategic plan. These plans need to describe the agency’s
Page 9
GAO-03-851T
critical human capital needs and how the new provisions will be used to
address the critical needs. The plan should also identify the safeguards or
other measures that will be applied to ensure that the authorities are
carried out fairly and in a manner consistent with merit system principles
and other national goals.
Furthermore, the Congress should establish statutory principles for the
standards that an agency must have in place before OPM can grant
additional pay flexibilities. The standards for DOD’s performance
management system contained in the National Security Personnel System
Act are the appropriate place to start. An agency would have to
demonstrate, and OPM would have to certify, that a modern, effective,
credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance management system
with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and
appropriate accountability mechanisms, is in place to support more
performance-based pay and related personnel decisions before the agency
could put the new system in operation. OPM should be required to act on
any individual certifications within prescribed time frames (e.g., 30–60
days).
Consistent with our suggestion to have DOD evaluate and report on its
efforts, agencies should also be required to evaluate the use of any new
pay or other human capital authorities periodically. Such evaluations, in
consultation with or subject to review of OPM, could be broadly modeled
on the evaluation requirements of OPM’s personnel demonstration
program.
Governmentwide SES
Performance and Pay
Reforms
Additional efforts should be undertaken to move the SES to an approach
where pay and rewards are more closely tied to performance. This is
consistent with the proposed Senior Executive Service Reform Act of
2003. Any effort to link pay to performance presupposes that effective,
results-oriented strategic and annual performance planning and reporting
systems are in place in an agency. That is, agencies must have a clear
understanding of the program results to be achieved and the progress that
is being made toward those intended results if they are to link pay to
performance. The SES needs to take the lead in matters related to pay for
performance.
Performance Management
Improvement Funds
We believe it would be highly desirable for the Congress to establish a
governmentwide fund where agencies, based on a sound business case,
could apply to OPM for funds to be used to modernize their performance
Page 10
GAO-03-851T
management systems and ensure that those systems have adequate
safeguards to prevent abuse. Too often, agencies lack the performance
management systems needed to effectively and fairly make pay and other
personnel decisions.
The basic idea of a governmentwide fund would be to provide for targeted
investments needed to prepare agencies to use their performance
management systems as strategic tools to achieve organizational results
and drive cultural change. Building such systems and safeguards will likely
require making targeted investments in agencies’ human capital programs,
as our own experience has shown. (If successful, this approach to targeted
investments could be expanded to foster and support agencies’ related
transformation efforts, including other aspects of the High Performing
Organization concept recommended by the Commercial Activities Panel.4)
Additional Targeted
Governmentwide Reforms
Finally, we also believe that the Congress should enact additional targeted
and governmentwide human capital reforms for which there is a
reasonable degree of consensus. Many of the provisions in the proposed
Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003 and the governmentwide human
capital provisions of the House version of DOD’s fiscal year 2004
authorization bill fall into this category.
Summary
Observations
Since we designated strategic human capital management as a
governmentwide high-risk area in January 2001, the Congress, the
administration, and agencies have taken steps to address the federal
government’s human capital shortfalls. In a number of statements before
the Congress over the last 2 years, I have urged the government to seize on
the current momentum for change and enact lasting improvements.
Significant progress has been—and is being—made in addressing the
federal government’s pressing human capital challenges. But experience
has shown that in making major changes in the cultures of organizations,
4
The panel was mandated by section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001, which required the Comptroller General to convene a panel of experts to
study the process used by the federal government to make sourcing decisions. After a
yearlong study, the panel published its report on April 30, 2002. See Commercial Activities
Panel, Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government: Final Report (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002). The report can be found on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov under the
Commercial Activities Panel heading.
Page 11
GAO-03-851T
how it is done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done can make
all the difference in whether we are ultimately successful.
DOD and other agency-specific human capital reforms should be enacted
to the extent that the problems being addressed and the solutions offered
are specific to particular agencies. A governmentwide approach should be
used to address certain flexibilities that have broad-based application and
serious potential implications for the civil service system, in general, and
OPM, in particular. This approach will help to accelerate needed human
capital reform in DOD and throughout the rest of the federal government.
Chairman Collins and Members of the Committee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have.
Contacts and
Acknowledgments
(450227)
For further information about this statement, please contact Derek B.
Stewart, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, on (202) 5125140 or at stewartd@gao.gov. For further information on governmentwide
human capital issues, please contact J. Christopher Mihm, Director,
Strategic Issues, on (202) 512-6806 or at mihmj@gao.gov. Major
contributors to this testimony included William Doherty, Bruce Goddard,
Hilary Murrish, Lisa Shames, Edward H. Stephenson, Martha Tracy, and
Michael Volpe.
Page 12
GAO-03-851T
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
GAO’s Mission
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily
E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone:
Voice:
TDD:
Fax:
(202) 512-6000
(202) 512-2537
(202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Contact:
Public Affairs
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470